Author
Topic: Second council of Lyon (Read 9267 times)

While reading through another thread here, I came across the subject of the second council of Lyon.

It has been mentioned that in the said council, the Easterners made the following declaration..

""The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."

My question is, is the above statement true ? Was the second council of Lyon similar to the council of Florence ?

Thank you in advance.

God Bless !

Logged

"He became what we are so that he might make us what he is." — St. Athanasius of Alexandria

The eastern representatives affirmed latin doctrine of the filioque, papal supremacy, etc at both the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Florence. In neither instance was their affirmation received in the east, however, and neither union ever truly manifested. Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology certainly does not give them the authority to have taken the actions they did in the name of the whole of the EOC. Both were politically motivated attempts to forge alliances between the Papacy and the Byzantine Empire. In the case of the Second Council of Lyon, to put an end to the fighting that had been caused by the creation of the Latin Empire in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, in the case of the Council of Florence, against the Islamic tide that was swallowing the Byzantine Empire.

The council had six general sessions: on 7 and 18 May, 4 or 7 June, 6, 16 and 17 July. In the fourth session the union of the Greek church with the Latin church was decreed and defined, this union being based on the consent which the Greeks had given to the claims of the Roman church. In the last session the dogmatic constitution concerning the procession of the holy Spirit was approved, this question having been a cause of disagreement between the two churches. The union however appears to have been imposed, on the Greek side by the emperor Michael VIII. He wanted the support of the pope in order to deter Charles of Anjou from an attack on the Byzantine empire, while the majority of the Greek clergy opposed the union. The union was therefore fleeting, either because in the East the clergy steadily resisted it, or because the popes after Gregory X changed their plan of action.

I realize that both the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyon were both politically motivated, specifically on the part of the Latin Church, who desired that the Eastern Church submit to Papal authority, accept the filioque, and Latin dogmas such as purgatory etc. All of the Orthodox delegates, except St. Mark of Ephesus, signed and agreed to the papal demands. The Orthodox, on the other hand, were hoping that Rome would come to their rescue against the Islamic onslaught. Rome had no intentions of helping the East. I realize these councils had nothing to do with any real issues or heresies confronting the church as a whole.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

I think it is Holy Tradition. It is imposable the Orthodox Church to not reject anything that is contrary to that which was given to her. That is what is passed on and given over within the Church from the time of Christ's apostles right down to the present day. (So is our faith). It is not a "majority" that keeps the faith, it is the truth that keeps the faith.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

First off, the 'Orthodox majority' did not agree to the decisions of that council. In fact, once the decisions of the council were made known to the Orthodox majority, the majority indicated their disagreement with what the bishops stated.

Secondly, decisions made in Council are not made by majority vote, as if a Council were the House of Commons or some such governmewntal body. Consensus guides the Church in these decisions: a consensus among the hierarchs as well as a consensus among the 'Orthodox majority', as you put it.

Finally, since the consensus within the Orthodox Church was that the decisions made in that council were improper, then the statements made from the councils are not adopted, no matter which hierarchs or ecclesiastical organizations consider it 'legit'.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Thank you. Did anything similar occur in early church history, primarily with the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where all in attendance accepted and agreed with the decisions, and then sometime later, a portion or section of the whole church rejected a particular council?

I think only one Russian bishop was present, if memory serves correctly. I believe he was jailed by the civil authorities when he returned to Russia because the Russian Orthodox faithful were so outraged that their faith had been compromised.

Thank you. Did anything similar occur in early church history, primarily with the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where all in attendance accepted and agreed with the decisions, and then sometime later, a portion or section of the whole church rejected a particular council?

If you are looking for an example of hierarchs making a decision but the laity disagreeing with the decision, then that would NOT be one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils*, since by defintion an Ecumenical Council is accepted by both the hierachs and the laity.

There have been multiple robber councils and other councils where hierarchs have met and the council has eventually been overturned.

*Actually, there are at least Eight Ecumenical Councils, mexcluding the Palamite Councils. Also, the difference between the Western 8th Council and the Eastern 8th Council is an example of exactly what I have been discussing here.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Were there any Orthodox that were not present at the Florence Council? If so, who were the particular Orthodox Churches?

Yes, for one Moldovia deposed its Metropolitan Damian (IIRC) when he left to go to Florence, and elevated another Metropolitan. Isodore was the only bishop in Rus' who went, and it had dozens of bishops IIRC by then. I don't believe anyone from Georgia or Abkhazia went.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

Were there any Orthodox that were not present at the Florence Council? If so, who were the particular Orthodox Churches?

Yes, for one Moldovia deposed its Metropolitan Damian (IIRC) when he left to go to Florence, and elevated another Metropolitan. Isodore was the only bishop in Rus' who went, and it had dozens of bishops IIRC by then. I don't believe anyone from Georgia or Abkhazia went.

If I'm not mistaken, he went to Florence as a Russian bishop, and left as a Roman cardinal.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Fr. Ambrose. The argument that Florence was an Ecumenical Council because of the Eastern participation is a pretty weak argument, I think.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Did those Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, first agree with the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon and then reject it later on? Because this is exactly what occurred at Florence.

This may sound strange coming from a Catholic, but I think you're being a tad unfair to the Orthodox: those who were present at the Council (other than Mark of Ephesus) accepted its decisions. That's not the same as saying that the churches accepted it (and later rejected it). What about those eastern bishops who weren't at the Council?

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Florence was an unmitigated failure for the ambitions of the Roman Catholic Church. It was not just Greeks there, Russians, Georgians, etc. There were also the Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians. Rome found its claimed supremacy rejected by both the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox and the Churches of the Oriental Orthodox. So basically Rome was outvoted by about 8 Churches to 1. The 'ecumenical' decision of all the Churches at the Council of Florence was that Rome was in error.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Florence was an unmitigated failure for the ambitions of the Roman Catholic Church. It was not just Greeks there, Russians, Georgians, etc. There were also the Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians. Rome found its claimed supremacy rejected by both the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox and the Churches of the Oriental Orthodox. So basically Rome was outvoted by about 8 Churches to 1. The 'ecumenical' decision of all the Churches at the Council of Florence was that Rome was in error.

I admit 8 to 1 sounds very impressive, but the thing is that it doesn't make much sense to give each of those 9 (or however many) Churches an equal vote.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Fr. Ambrose. The argument that Florence was an Ecumenical Council because of the Eastern participation is a pretty weak argument, I think.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Clarification: I consider the latter argument stronger than the former, but I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Fr. Ambrose. The argument that Florence was an Ecumenical Council because of the Eastern participation is a pretty weak argument, I think.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Clarification: I consider the latter argument stronger than the former, but I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

I would think that a condition for an Ecumenical Council is that all the bishops of the world are invited to participate. This did not happen at Florence. It was a limited Council with chosen participants.

Did those Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, first agree with the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon and then reject it later on? Because this is exactly what occurred at Florence.

Essentially the Bishops of what was to become the Syriac Orthodox Church were the only ones who accepted Chalcedon at first.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Florence was an unmitigated failure for the ambitions of the Roman Catholic Church. It was not just Greeks there, Russians, Georgians, etc. There were also the Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians. Rome found its claimed supremacy rejected by both the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox and the Churches of the Oriental Orthodox. So basically Rome was outvoted by about 8 Churches to 1. The 'ecumenical' decision of all the Churches at the Council of Florence was that Rome was in error.

I admit 8 to 1 sounds very impressive, but the thing is that it doesn't make much sense to give each of those 9 (or however many) Churches an equal vote.

You are of course quite right. At an Ecumenical Council there is no voting in "blocks" by Churches. Every bishop speaks for himself and votes as he believes right. On this and other points Florence is far from being an Ecumenical Council.

My questions are: Since the Orthodox majority had agreed to the decisions of these councils, did they,the Orthodox, have a right to reject these councils later? Since the Latin Church recognizes the decisions of both these councils, what makes the decision on the part of the Orthodox legit?

It is not unimportant to know that when the West is critical of the East for rejecting Florence that this is simply Western propaganda. The East never accepted Florence.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Fr. Ambrose. The argument that Florence was an Ecumenical Council because of the Eastern participation is a pretty weak argument, I think.

A better argument is this: acceptance of the decisions of Florence was required by the Church, as a condition for being part of the Church. The Orthodox didn't accept, and therefore were no longer part of the Church.

Clarification: I consider the latter argument stronger than the former, but I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

I would think that a condition for an Ecumenical Council is that all the bishops of the world are invited to participate. This did not happen at Florence. It was a limited Council with chosen participants.

I was under the impression that other bishops could have come if they wanted.

I guess I assumed that it would have just been impractical for all of the Eastern bishops to go to Italy.

I guess one way to look at the difference between Lyon II and Florence is that Lyon was an opportunity without an ultimatum, if you will. That is to say, at Lyon the Orthodox had an opportunity to come back into full communion with Rome. They failed to do so, unfortunately, but they did not thereby remove themselves from the Church entirely. The situation after Lyon was pretty much the same as the situation before Lyon.

..........I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

Florence was never an Ecumenical Council. In fact it was the instrument by which Pope Eugene chose to deliver the death blow to any and all future real and genuine Councils by means of his bull "Etsi non dubitemus ."

Prior to Florence the true order of the Church was more or less intact and the Pope was subject to Ecumenical Councils. But with "Etsi non dubitemus" Pope Eugene changed all that and unilaterally declared all Councils inferior to his person and unable to judge him.

Prior to Florence churchmen thought the Pope was subject to Councils. After Florence he was not. Eugene had up-ended the structure of the Church.

This astounding reversal of the Church's tradition of 1000 years and more was also the death blow to any genuine authority for bishops in the Roman Church. Form henceforth their presence at Councils was only really attending a "think tank" because their ancient authority had been abolished by the Pope and the Pope reigned supreme over them. And so it was the the ancient structure and administration of the Church ceased to exist in the West and "la Papatia" won the day and thenceforth ruled unchallenged.

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

but I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

What is an Ecumenical Council?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

It confirms Mary in her contention that Orthodoxy is inherently ahistorical when dealing with primatial power...and when it is not ahistorical it is delusional in that it cannot see that it uses the same kind of logic that the Catholic Church uses when defending against those who step outside the tradition, or are outside the tradition, and challenge the teachings and practices of the Church.

..........I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

Florence was never an Ecumenical Council. In fact it was the instrument by which Pope Eugene chose to deliver the death blow to any and all future real and genuine Councils by means of his bull "Etsi non dubitemus ."

Prior to Florence the true order of the Church was more or less intact and the Pope was subject to Ecumenical Councils. But with "Etsi non dubitemus" Pope Eugene changed all that and unilaterally declared all Councils inferior to his person and unable to judge him.

Prior to Florence churchmen thought the Pope was subject to Councils. After Florence he was not. Eugene had up-ended the structure of the Church.

This astounding reversal of the Church's tradition of 1000 years and more was also the death blow to any genuine authority for bishops in the Roman Church. Form henceforth their presence at Councils was only really attending a "think tank" because their ancient authority had been abolished by the Pope and the Pope reigned supreme over them. And so it was the the ancient structure and administration of the Church ceased to exist in the West and "la Papatia" won the day and thenceforth ruled unchallenged.

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

I agree that the Council of Florence represents a major change in the situation (the implications of which took about 150 years to play out) although I don't agree with you on particulars. For one thing, I don't think we have the same idea of what "real and genuine Councils" means.

One thing I would say is that Florence was the death blow of ecumenism. An objection might be raised: Doesn't the revival of ecumenism in the 20th century disprove that? It seems to me, however, that it was not really a revival so much as the rise of a new phenomenon/movement.

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

It confirms Mary in her contention that Orthodoxy is inherently ahistorical when dealing with primatial power...and when it is not ahistorical it is delusional in that it cannot see that it uses the same kind of logic that the Catholic Church uses when defending against those who step outside the tradition, or are outside the tradition, and challenge the teachings and practices of the Church.

LOL. This is ahistorical:

Quote

Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power offer the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

§2. It exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a true collegial act.

§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 339 §1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.

§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

It's not a question of stepping out, just stopping to drink the Kool-Aid.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Did those Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, first agree with the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon and then reject it later on? Because this is exactly what occurred at Florence.

Essentially the Bishops of what was to become the Syriac Orthodox Church were the only ones who accepted Chalcedon at first.

No, the Egyptian bishops were not allowed to leave until they agreed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

June 6, 1439, an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, St. Mark of Ephesus. Patriarch Joseph II reposed two days later. The Greeks then insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could only be achieved by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. In August 1441 the Oriental Orthodox(not all were invited) were convened for a council.Why would the Eastern Church have need for ratification when all who attended Florence agreed and signed? Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed? I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

All this tells me is that in Orthodoxy, not only is there no primatial power in reality, but there's really no conciliar power either.

June 6, 1439, an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, St. Mark of Ephesus. Patriarch Joseph II reposed two days later. The Greeks then insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could only be achieved by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. In August 1441 the Oriental Orthodox(not all were invited) were convened for a council.Why would the Eastern Church have need for ratification when all who attended Florence agreed and signed? Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed? I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

I apologize for playing the devil's advocate.

Resources promised by the Pope to the eastern bishops for their living expenses (their "pay") were withheld for months at a time. The emporer refused to leave the council until an agreement had been made. The western bishops refused to change their position regardless of what appeals the eastern bishops (St Mark especially) made to councils and patristic writings. IIRC the list of who among the eastern delegation was allowed to vote on certain issues was changed from time to time throughout the council.

The Pope wanted ecclesiastical submission (doctrinally and organizatinally) and the emporer wanted military aid in defending what was left of his empire (he wasn't leaving without it).

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed? I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.

Did those Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, first agree with the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon and then reject it later on? Because this is exactly what occurred at Florence.

Essentially the Bishops of what was to become the Syriac Orthodox Church were the only ones who accepted Chalcedon at first.

No, the Egyptian bishops were not allowed to leave until they agreed.

LOL. Even if that were true, you realize how ridiculous of an idea it is, right?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

It confirms Mary in her contention that Orthodoxy is inherently ahistorical when dealing with primatial power...and when it is not ahistorical it is delusional in that it cannot see that it uses the same kind of logic that the Catholic Church uses when defending against those who step outside the tradition, or are outside the tradition, and challenge the teachings and practices of the Church.

Take off the blinkers, Mary. I am sure you are historically literate enough to know that what Pope Eugene did with "Etsi non dubitemus was a watershed in the development of the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Previously it had been generally taught and believed in the Church of Rome that a Bishop of Rome is subject to Councils. With Eugene's Bull that was stood on its head - the Pope was now superior to Councils and could not be judged by his peers, the ancient authority of bishops was removed.

Eugene brought into existence the powers of the modern Papacy. To reunify with us, you will have to destroy them.

..........I think that both arguments contribute to the conclusion that Florence was an ecumenical council.

Florence was never an Ecumenical Council. In fact it was the instrument by which Pope Eugene chose to deliver the death blow to any and all future real and genuine Councils by means of his bull "Etsi non dubitemus ."

Prior to Florence the true order of the Church was more or less intact and the Pope was subject to Ecumenical Councils. But with "Etsi non dubitemus" Pope Eugene changed all that and unilaterally declared all Councils inferior to his person and unable to judge him.

Prior to Florence churchmen thought the Pope was subject to Councils. After Florence he was not. Eugene had up-ended the structure of the Church.

This astounding reversal of the Church's tradition of 1000 years and more was also the death blow to any genuine authority for bishops in the Roman Church. Form henceforth their presence at Councils was only really attending a "think tank" because their ancient authority had been abolished by the Pope and the Pope reigned supreme over them. And so it was the the ancient structure and administration of the Church ceased to exist in the West and "la Papatia" won the day and thenceforth ruled unchallenged.

This may help Catholics (such as Mary) to understand why the Orthodox see "the Papacy" as aberration in the Roman Church and one which has to be deconstructed if Rome wishes to pursue union with us.

I agree that the Council of Florence represents a major change in the situation (the implications of which took about 150 years to play out) although I don't agree with you on particulars. For one thing, I don't think we have the same idea of what "real and genuine Councils" means.

"Real and genuine Councils" are those composed of bishops who exercise their God-given episcopal prerogatives under the freedom and prompting of the Holy Spirit.

"Real and genuine Councils" can never be at the mercy of the stranglehold of just one bishop.

"Real and genuine Councils" are not reduced to rubberstamps by one bishop who can negate them by refusing to approve them.

June 6, 1439, an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, St. Mark of Ephesus. Patriarch Joseph II reposed two days later. The Greeks then insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could only be achieved by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. In August 1441 the Oriental Orthodox(not all were invited) were convened for a council.Why would the Eastern Church have need for ratification when all who attended Florence agreed and signed? Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed? I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

I apologize for playing the devil's advocate.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved.

"TO THE OTHER afflictions which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found dead in his room. On the table lay (supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome. Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I affix my signature."

"There is no doubt whatever that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document. The German scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the "Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its spuriousness is evident." [1] The ''Testament" appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late; contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

All this tells me is that in Orthodoxy, not only is there no primatial power in reality, but there's really no conciliar power either.

Power to the Orthodox People!!....

This is silly! A reading of message 40 shows that the Orthodox delegates insisted on the exercise of proper conciliar procedures in order to ratify Florence.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

All this tells me is that in Orthodoxy, not only is there no primatial power in reality, but there's really no conciliar power either.

Power to the Orthodox People!!....

Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't function quite in the manner described above by elijahmarie.

It is certainly inaccurate to say there is *no* primatial power in Orthodoxy; rather there is no *absolute* primatial power in Orthodoxy. Absolute power corrupts, as absolute independence corrupts. In Orthodoxy there is a proper balance of power, specifically sobernost, under the headship of Christ (cf. Ernst Benz below). In Orthodoxy bishops must call for the amen of the people. The people have a voice along with deacons and presbyters. This has worked out just fine for some 2000 years now.

Quote from: Ernst Benz

The Orthodox Church acknowledges the monarchical principle as far as the whole Church is concerned, this concept embracing both the visible Church on earth and the invisible celestial Church. The master, lord and sole head of the Church is Christ. But the monarchical principle does not in practice rule the organization of the visible Church. Here purely democratic principles prevail. No single member of the Church is considered to have a legal position fundamentally superior to that of the other members. Even the clergy, aside from the sacramental powers accorded to them by their consecration, have no special rights that would set them above the laity. The Orthodox Church prizes this "democratic" (sobornost’) principle as one of its oldest traditions. Just as all the apostles were equal in rank and authority, so their successors, the bishops, are all equal.

It is true that the principle of the so-called monarchical episcopate became established quite early in the primitive Church. That is to say, the bishop was recognized as holding the leading position within the Church. But this did not mean that he alone represented the entire spiritual power of the Church. Not even the bishops as a body constituted the highest authority of the Church. This was vested in the ecumenical consensus or conscience of the Church, which meant the general opinion of clergy and laymen taken together. Even the decision of an ecumenical council acquires validity only if it is accepted by this general consensus of the whole Church. Although the bishop represents the unity of the Christian community and exercises full spiritual powers, he is no autocrat; he and all the clergy subordinate to him are regarded as parts of the entire ecclesia, the living organism of which Christ is the head. -Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life

Quote from: F. Matthews-Green

The method was collegial, not authoritarian; disputes were settled in church councils, whose decisions were not valid unless “received” by the whole community. The Faith was indeed common: what was believed by all people, in all times, in all places. The degree of unity won this way was amazing. Though there was some local liturgical variation, the Church was strikingly uniform in faith and practice across vast distances, and at a time when communication was far from easy. This unity was so consistent that I could attribute it to nothing but the Holy Spirit. -F. Matthews-Green, Facing East

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

So is it true, then, that they didn't mention a need for ratification until after the death of Patriarch Joseph?

Since, overall, the Council of Florence lasted for about a year, did not the delegates representing the Eastern Orthodox communicate back to their appropriate jurisdictions or Patriarchs with regards to the matters being discussed? I cannot understand why the populous and other bishops found out about the decisions of this council after the fact.

Basic scenario: A council is convened, bishops representing the whole church are present and accept and sign an agreement. Some time later, other hierarchs and the populous in the Orthodox Church rejected the decisions of Florence. A council was agreed upon, then was rejected. What am I missing?

All this tells me is that in Orthodoxy, not only is there no primatial power in reality, but there's really no conciliar power either.

Power to the Orthodox People!!....

Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't function quite in the manner described above by elijahmarie.

It certainly inaccurate to say there is *no* primatial power in Orthodoxy; rather there is no *absolute* primatial power in Orthodoxy. Absolute power corrupts, as surely absolute independence corrupts. In Orthodoxy there is a proper balance of power, specifically sobernost, under the headship of Christ (cf. Ernst Benz below). In Orthodoxy bishops must call for the amen of the people. The people have a voice along with deacons and presbyters. This has worked out just fine for some 2000 years now.

Quote from: Ernst Benz

The Orthodox Church acknowledges the monarchical principle as far as the whole Church is concerned, this concept embracing both the visible Church on earth and the invisible celestial Church. The master, lord and sole head of the Church is Christ. But the monarchical principle does not in practice rule the organization of the visible Church. Here purely democratic principles prevail. No single member of the Church is considered to have a legal position fundamentally superior to that of the other members. Even the clergy, aside from the sacramental powers accorded to them by their consecration, have no special rights that would set them above the laity. The Orthodox Church prizes this "democratic" (sobornost’) principle as one of its oldest traditions. Just as all the apostles were equal in rank and authority, so their successors, the bishops, are all equal.

It is true that the principle of the so-called monarchical episcopate became established quite early in the primitive Church. That is to say, the bishop was recognized as holding the leading position within the Church. But this did not mean that he alone represented the entire spiritual power of the Church. Not even the bishops as a body constituted the highest authority of the Church. This was vested in the ecumenical consensus or conscience of the Church, which meant the general opinion of clergy and laymen taken together. Even the decision of an ecumenical council acquires validity only if it is accepted by this general consensus of the whole Church. Although the bishop represents the unity of the Christian community and exercises full spiritual powers, he is no autocrat; he and all the clergy subordinate to him are regarded as parts of the entire ecclesia, the living organism of which Christ is the head. -Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life

Quote from: F. Matthews-Green

The method was collegial, not authoritarian; disputes were settled in church councils, whose decisions were not valid unless “received” by the whole community. The Faith was indeed common: what was believed by all people, in all times, in all places. The degree of unity won this way was amazing. Though there was some local liturgical variation, the Church was strikingly uniform in faith and practice across vast distances, and at a time when communication was far from easy. This unity was so consistent that I could attribute it to nothing but the Holy Spirit. -F. Matthews-Green, Facing East

That seem fair to me. I guess all belivers must remember they deal with Church (Body of Christ), not political organization. I remember reading profesor Jerzy Klinger, Polish Orthodox scholar, who pointed out that Orthodox Church constantly pray for unity because love is always hard to achive and sustain.